Key of the proper type is the conclusion Nationwide the forensic locksmith uses to determine how the stolen car was last driven. This is not a scientific conclusion as it is treated, but a general opinion used on about 99% of all auto theft claims. Tis opinion not only can get your claim denied, but can also be used to convicts you. Without us to defend you, you are basically screwed!

Insurance Claims During Covid

13 Wednesday May 2020

Posted by smittydog1952 in key of the proper type

≈ Leave a comment

Insureds during the covid19 era are going to be disasterous for Insureds.

States were closed since the middle of March shutting down the US economy with as many as 30 million people not working.

The first thing that has to be realized is that all investigators are skeptical in normal times. Covid has drained the finances out of many. The little but if savings they had may be gone already and that $1,200 the government gave us, in many cases was used to pay a missed car payment, house payment or whatever.

This can be the hardest times that people have ever gone through, I know it has been difficult for me with much of my work still in closed stares in which client attorneys have put cases on hold because the courts are not open.

There are some that will panic and maybe report the car stolen, or all of a sudden their house has a major peril such as a fire. Some panic and want to liquidate figuring the insurance company will pay the claim with no questions asked. That was 20 years ago! It doesn’t work like that anymore! Things may seem hopeless but you do not want to misrepresent a claim. You can possibly go to jail! Investigators are very thorough these days. Many are ex-cops. Don’t think you can outsmart them. You can’t. They know more about you, your relatives and friends than you can imagine. They have more power than the cops, because they don’t need a warrant. You signed over permission for them to obtain any information they need and you agreed to cooperate with the time nvestigation!

All I am saying is if you think that because you haven’t had a claim for years and you want to get some quick cash from a bogus insurance claim, for your own good, think of something else!

We have now experienced another different experience because of Covid 19. To protect the criminals from getting this disease, we have the bleeding heart liberals that are very concerned for their safety one such an diot is the Los Angeles County sheriff that released over 4,000 criminals on the streets, but closed the gun stores so you could not protect yourself. That has happened across the country. All crime is up! Auto theft, auto burglaries, home invasions, rape and everything else!

We have severe weather destroying homes in the south. It has been a crazy year! To top it off 30 million unemployed, ranchers having to euthanize their gerds because it costs to much to feed the cattle there is no demand for or they can’t get processed in the meat plant because they are shut down because employees have been subjected to Covid 19. It’s like a bad movie in which we don’t know the ending!

Investigators are going to be skeptical on auto theft claims more than ever! The narrative to them iisvehicles are impossible to steal and a thief would not burn through vehicle. Interesting they know all this up front without catching the thief! The goal is to accuse the insured. The insurance company won’t accuse you in the begining, but their all knowing forensic expert will say the last key used had to be the insureds key.

Many think all they gave to do us tell the truth, they gave nothing to hide oh yes they do! There us more than one way to tell the truth and you are already at a disadvabtafe. They have a guy using a forensic title that has no problem lying about you!

If you have a SIU investigation, call me. I will let you know if I can guide you through the mine field in which every word you say will be contorted, twisted in their favor. If you have an EUO (Examination Under Oath) scheduled (Sworn testimony) do nothing without contacting me!

My consultations are exytremelt successful and they are remote keeping us safe. Lawyers cannot help you with investigations or EUOs on auto theft claims.

1-866-490-1673 or 1-903-513-7808 Rob

My email is robo14@aol.com

Befote covid, insurance carriers would try to deny claims on their bogus Forensics in auto theft claims and I have made them decide otherwise.

I consult on all types of property claims, boats, home owners, renters, auto theft and collision claims. I am an expert in Sworn testimony. I have been doing it for 25 years opposing insurance companies. It has been a very Rocky road and they have tried everything to put me out of business and I am still here;!

If you have an auto theft claim that has been denied and you are pursuing by suing the carrier, I oppose successfully their so called forensic experts across the country!

Auto Theft Claim Denial Cases, SIU Investigation

13 Wednesday May 2020

Posted by smittydog1952 in auto theft, Auto Theft Claim Denial, Forensic ignition analysis, ignition forensics, Insurance fraud investigator, Insurer fraud, key of the proper type, SIU Investigation EUO Consultant For Insureds

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Fraudulent auto theft claim, key of the proper type, last key used, Robert mangine, What is an SIU investigation?

Rob Painter

1-866-490-1673

1-903-513-7808

Robo14@aol.com

Auto theft claim denial cases appear much more complex than they are.

This is by design.

My general interpretation of an auto theft claim denial letter:

The insurance denial letter creates the understanding to the reader that due diligence was performed in the investigation of the claim.

In spite of how much we wanted to pay the claim, the facts would just not let us.

Fact #1

Policy holder was consistent with making late payments on vehicle.

Fact#2 The vehicle was recovered totally burned. Vehicles do not self-combust.

Fact#3 On inspection, the engine was found to have serious pre-exisisting problems with anti freeze found in the found in the engine oil.

Fact#4 This vehicle is equipped from the factory with a highly sophisticated anti-theft system requiring a specially electronic encrypted key to start the engine.

Fact#5 The policy holder had all keys in their possession.
Forensics was performed on this vehicle to confirm this vehicle was last driven with a key of the proper type.

Because of these facts we cannot honor this claim because of misrepresented material fact.

Once an attorney reviews a letter like this, it is extremely common to assume that it is pretty much and open and shut case.

Attempting to defend the case would cost a lot of money because of the forensic findings of their expert. This appears to be highly technicial.

Even if you could retain a qualified consultant, it’s a crapshoot as to who the jury would believe.

Working on a contingency with all these areas that could go wrong could make the case extremely time consuming with no benefit. These are very serious considerations and should not be taken lightly.

Also keep in mind it is very common for the defense to try to transfer these cases to federal courts because the rumor is federal juries tend to favor corporations such as insurance companies.

What I have laid out here is the most common scenarios I see after being in this business for over 20 years.

You will find the case in which you are reviewing a common denial letter like I outlined.

You may feel like a fish out of water with a tremendous amount of risk of the unknown.

This is the reality. What are you going to do? Sure, you know the law well and are good a litigating, but this case is different because it is supported by forensic evidence and potential testimony. What do you do?

I would suggest contacting me, because the first problem attorneys have in these cases is assume that you are really dealing with forensics in these cases.

Forensic locksmithing has been nothing but a Con, a Scam for the last 15 years. Sure, that is my opinion, but different than the ignition forensics, it is all proven fact, not with technical jargon, but something as simple as common sense!

Convince me:

Forensic methodology as it applies to a reported stolen vehicle is use of the scientific method.
Theories are applied and ruled in or out in order to meet a scientific verifiabal conclusion.
This means, if another examiner examines the same evidence as the procedures applied by the insurance forensic examiner, the conclusion by the second examiner should be exactly the same.
That process is also known as peer review.

The very very first problem we run across it that these ignition/anti-theft exams are treated as secret.

Science is not secret and if the process used is secret, it’s simply not science or forensic!

Example: During the course of the investigation, the insured is commonly told they can contact an attorney anytime.
Yet, when it comes to the forensic examination of the vehicle, things take a different turn. The insured is told forensics will be performed on the vehicle. They are not given a time or date. They are not informed that they can hire their own forensic expert! No problem with an attorney, but if they are going to have strangers with a vested interest in the outcome of the claim rummaging through the vehicle with no one to watch them, that’s not OK.

I have been hired by the insured to be at the forensic examinations. Except for a few times, it hasn’t gone well.
It has been common to try to keep me far enough away in which I can’t see if they are taking and hiding evidence, adding evidence etc.

Look, I am not infering anything nefarious here, but remember, the carrier is their client and not the insured! The “independent” conclusions are going to favor their client!

Believe them because they are the forensic experts!

Microscopes are no longer used to determine the fine details of identifiable markings in the waters (tumblers) as compared to a specific key. That was simply too much time and effort to be applied. Juries don’t know any better! That reliable process got phased out around 2010-2012. Micro photos could be taken of the small lock components.

The process was replaced that missed half the detail, and now because photos of the small internal lock components could not be taken, we are left taking the experts word on what he said he observed. OK.

Evidence Retention

For the life of me, I cannot believe the courts let these guys testify to evidence they don’t have. Especially in criminal trials!
How can the examination be forensic? It can’t be replicated!

All these cases are intrinsic and there will always be different factors involved. So my services will always be needed for difference between these cases

Once the expert is taken out, the case falls apart. In my example of the denial letter, I took out 4 out of 5 so-called facts. You as the lawyer can take out their imagined motivation on the part of the insured.

Now, are you still worried about taking a denied auto theft claim supported by forensics?

Here is the root cause to these cases:
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-humes-forensic-evidence-20190113-story.html?

This is what stands in the way of insured’s being paid for their theft claims, and makes the difference between a clean record or conviction on auto theft claims/cases. This story listedlist nothing to do with auto theft, but the junk science of forensics. The same junk science applied by insurance carrier vendors when determining the last key used in a reported stolen vehicle.

You will see other references to what I am going to say in other pages in this site. For 20 years all auto carriers using Forensics to determine the last key used in a reported theft have procured Certified Forensic Locksmiths, engineers and mechanics.

A majority of the time when doing this are facilitating fraud to accuse the insured of fraud for the purpose of denying the claim, or worse yet prosecution of felony insurance fraud of which you will be convicted without my involvement!

I have been defending these claims and cases for 25 years and the most common problem I see with attorneys defending these cases/claims is they put far too much credence in the apparent Forensics applied by these experts.

What appears to be scientific if a microscope is used (rarely) is merely a dog and pony show for the uninformed. Common sense is thrown out the window so everyone in the courtroom believes the expert because of the use of the bogus Certified Forensic Locksmiths title! It sounds very impressive. One of the real problems is that commonly (almost every time) what appears to be fact about the vehicle in the report is merely projection and speculation appearing to be fact. Defendants without my involvement get convicted on this crap!

Why? Because it’s not just my opinion these guys are fabricating a story, but it is documented provable fact in almost every auto Theft investigation from these charlatans I oppose!

I have many of these experts previous cookie cutter reports in which they can be applied to the case at hand, commonly leaving the question for the expert; which time were you telling the truth?

You may say “This sounds to complicated, stolen vehicles and forensics.” Do not fear!

I have made these issues my mission in life, to have more knowledge than anyone on every aspect of these cases. I still do not know everything, but am constantly trying for that goal. I know in many cases what the opposing expert does not know from past performances. Unfortunately, they get free training from me when I call them out on their non-sense in these cases. The problem is they never seem to learn, or their past mistakes are brought to life.

Auto Theft Claim Denial Cases Are Very Common! The only problem from my experience nationwide over the years has been taking on a new client attorney who will say “This is the first case of this nature I have ever had.”

Of course these cases need you to perform your lawyerly skills, but they are different.

What makes them different? Unlike many cases out there they are built on a house of cards with a sand foundation in a wind storm!

The mechanics of these cases: These cases are built on the third party forensics the carrier contracted to examine the ignition, the keys and anti-theft system of a reported stolen vehicle. The purpose is for forensics to determine how the reported stolen vehicle was last driven before the theft. Commonly, it is asserted that the insured’s keys were used last implicating the insured with the theft. There by making it a fraudulent claim.

The carrier has great confidence in their forensic experts in this area, because uncontested, the insured or defendant loses.

After all, the courts are in awe of a Certified Forensic Locksmith or engineer title, which causes their credibility to soar! The main reason: Ignorance of everyone in the court on auto theft methodology and how forensics is supposed to interact! There is no comparison, so the expert’s methodology can’t be questioned as well as he conclusions.

Let’s throw a monkey wrench into this finely tuned process the carrier uses to control its costs by not paying the claim, or convicting the insured as well if the claim goes criminal.

I guide the client through every aspect of the claims investigation. These investigations for a manufactured motive can’t go forward without the forensic expert inferring the insured had the last key used. Without the report and conclusions, the investigation has no way to go forward.

Depending on the strategy of the attorney, we can take the expert out in deposition, or damage his credibility to the attorney’s specifications.

Personal attacks are not applied, however any previous reports by the expert can be compared to the case at hand for standardized examination methodology. Many of these experts nationwide, I have past depo and trial transcripts and reports.

Forensic locksmithing the way it has been applied over the last decade has not progressed, but digressed. These guys have gotten lazy. The only forensics applied is in the title they so willing us to impress the courts!

There is no one that has the training, background experience I do in auto theft and forensics!

Just a little about me:

I had a business that repaired theft recovered vehicles for 20 years. This means that while these experts were locksmithing, I was putting major puzzles together in the case of a full strip! Not only did I make keys and service locks, but serviced factory and after market security systems. In fact, I defeated the impossible to bypass transponder systems. Los Angeles “Greines v Ford.” In another LA case serving as an expert witness, I decimated the opposing expert in “McCoy v Progressive.”

In Fresno it was “Sidhu v Farmers.” Over 25 years serving as a consultant/expert witness, there are a large amount of cases our side prevailed on, not including all the cases we forced settlement without court intervention. I have about 20 published cases through Westlaw and other legal resources.

I authored the first 1,350 power point slide training course on auto theft and forensic examinations in 2001. The testing methodology was vetted by the FBI tool mark and firearms supervisor as well as the US Army Crime Lab in Georgia.

My first book I authored was in 1998 “Auto Theft-Let The Truth Be Known!” Even though it has been out of print for some time, sill listed on Amazon.

In essence, there is not a vehicle out there that I have not been able to illustrate to a jury as to how to steal without the insured’s keys! Better yet, in many cases forensics can not be ruled in or ruled out!

It gets worse for the opposition–Who have I recently worked for? A repossession company, where from the time the tow truck wheel lift touches a vehicle’s wheels, it can be as little as 30 seconds before the vehicle is mine!

Here is the part that can be approached in many ways:

Is your client looking for a quick settlement? That is entirely possible! I review the file and the forensic report on the vehicle and generate a report that you as the attorney can submit to the carrier and ask them if they really want to proceed forward? We never bluff!

Or, the case goes to deposition for the insurance personnel involved including their forensic expert. I supply the questions for the client attorney, and we eviscerate them!

Last but not least, I can be retained as a consultant/expert witness and make a fool out of the forensic expert illustrating to a jury, not only can the vehicle be stolen without the insured’s keys, but all the so-called forensics applied to the case was a scam. These ae not my opinions, but fact!

Low Cost Benefit: If I am serving as a consultant assisting the attorney, travel may not even be necessary! This is truly possible in cases for quick settlement without having to go through the court system.

I have had prosecutors very confident in their dealer expert call me and talk to me for a half hour and dismiss the case!

These auto theft insurance claim denials are based on the forensic expert they have. Take out the expert and there goes the case!

If you do not currently have an auto theft claim denial case, you may want to be proactive and attempt acquiring one or two. You may find these cases to be simple, but fun to do in which you as the plaintiff attorney control the outcome of the case with your consultant! Let your consultant do the work for you.

I am an expert on every level required on auto theft claim denial cases. I am also an expert on the experts. I know what they can and cannot prove. For years, their conclusions inferring the insured was involved have not been a fact, but a pure deception in my opinion by the use of semantics. These experts are not lying. They are just telling half truths. It works because no one in the court knows better, yet I have proved it time and time again for the past 25 years!

I also do failure analysis and crash analysis. Vehicle recalls like the GM ignition recall.

I had a fatality Chevrolet crash in which the air bags did not deploy. They did not deploy because of the GM ignition switch recall. Was the vehicle listed in the recall? No! I had to cross references the ignition lock and key design to find that it was in fact involved in the recall. I supplied a very extensive report including weather conditions, as well as using a like kind vehicle to test my theories. Everything matched what the on site crash investigator surmised over a year prior.

Insurance defense attorneys and prosecutors may feel left out here. Please don’t. I can assist you by reviewing your claim/case in order to head off any future liability issues by your forensic lock expert.

I work for anyone looking for the truth!

Rob Painter

1-866-490-1673

Cell: 1-903-513-7808

Robo14@aol.com

Covid 19 Corona Virus Policy

09 Thursday Apr 2020

Posted by smittydog1952 in key of the proper type

≈ Leave a comment

Due to the dangers of spreading the virus, we give our clients a real feeling of safety and security.

A majority of our services to the consumer or insured require little to much no e physical interaction.
We have been serving our insurance clients remotely for a decade, consulting them during an auto theft investigation or an examination under oath.
We guide the client through email or by phone. Our remote services are extremely successful. Many times I am steal and the investigator does not know the client was coached, or at least who by.
There are times that I may have to provide a report on the vehicle to illustrate how inept their forensic expert is accusing the insured of having the last key used on their stolen car.
I can’t say we are nice because we know the fraud the insured is being subjected to.
The investigators are bullies.
We serve as the insured’s 800 pound gorilla in auto theft investigations.
We don’t go to hurt the expert accusing the insured/client of the claim. We rhetorically kill him!
The worst thing is we love the verbal combat the client ends up with a claim that is settled without having to spend tears in the court system with no guaranty the insured will prevail!

The only time there is physical intervention on our part is if we have to testify in court.
That only happens if the insured was denied on their theft claim and is suing the insurance company.

Buy Here Pay Here Cars

09 Thursday Apr 2020

Posted by smittydog1952 in key of the proper type

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

auto theft, Lemon law, vehicle theft

Over the years vehicle security has been an extensive concern. We equip our cars with alarms, anti theft devices gps tracking etc.
However, this has been turned against the consumer and it will get worse!
It seems these sub prime auto dealers don’t trust their clients and not only have the ability to disrupt your privacy as well as putting them at risk of hacking, but if late on a payment can disable the engine from starting remotely.
Other concerns are that there is an aftermarket device wired into your vehicles computer system. You have no idea if this incompetent installation was performed professionally or if the system has the ability to start your car on fire!
I investigated after market products that had issues being made in China that did just that, setting the car on fire!
Did you know that such products will void a manufacturer’s warranty?
You are dealing with a product in which you have no idea about it’s realiability!

I question the legality of such products being installed. There are active cases involving the installation of these devices right now!
With the issues going on with the economy, more and more dealers including new car dealers are going to resort to such options! Next, the I’ll be video taping the occupants in the vehicle and whatever is going on when the car is being driven! Insurance companies would love this information to fight their fraud claims!

Personally, I say to Hell with big brother! At the time of purchase, people will sign away their privacy because their credit may not be good enough to purchase a car from an honest dealer at a reasonable price.
40 years of alarm installation, GPS experience as well as the ability to bypass factory security that few have been able to do.
We offer you the ability to DIY to disconnect these unwanted features.
For a fee, we can supply a very easy way to bypass these systems with 0 problems.
This instructional information is supplied for education purposes. We can not be held responsible for what the reader does with this information.
If you apply it to your vehicle, that is not on us, however the information you will find is very valid and has a 100% success rate!

You may want to disable the engine disable and leave the GPS intact. You have the option!
Never worked on vehicle electronics before? Not a problem. You will learn to be a pro!

Simple tools needed will be addressed! Don’t worry, if you apply as per instructed, you could hook it back up again, probably more professional than the hack called a mechanic at these car lots!

For a detailed instructional publication on how to disable the aftermarket GPS and engine disable contact me at robo14@aol.com.

For the beginner who has never done anything like this, it shouldn’t take more than an hour.
For someone familiar with vehicle electronics, it should only take from 15-20 minutes!
Personally, I don’t think a stranger should he allowed to know my movements and I sure as hell would not be getting gouged financially on a car that may not start for me!

Recently in San Antonio an employee was let go. Well, as he went, he took customer accounts with him giving him the ability to shut down 1,100 of the vehicles the dealer had sold!
There were 1,100 very pissed off people that had made payments that could not drive their cars,ball because of a disgruntled employee!

We offer you the ability to take your privacy back and know that your engine will start when you need it!

Automobile Forensics

01 Sunday Mar 2020

Posted by smittydog1952 in ignition forensics, Insurer fraud, key of the proper type

≈ Leave a comment

Rob Painter

1-866-490-1673

Robo14@aol.com

have over 30 years of applying the scientific method in my examinations for over 30 years.

My experience is vast from determining the origin and cause of a vehicle fire, to sudden acceleration recalls. Determining collision damage, to auto theft and to how the vehicle was last driven.

My for my for my ASE certtifiations were in Medium/Hvy Duty truck repair, Auto and collision.

I have been involved in discovering recalls, and drafting scientifically verifiable report conclusions on a variety of problems. It could be a vehicle fire with a known origin and cause which I would have to trace back to the source amongst the burn debris.

It could be a severe head on crash that the airbag did not deploy. It could be an accident collision re-enactment. Determining collision damage between a vehicle and another object.

That is what he as made my life do interesting and applying the scientific method, things commonly go together for an air tight conclusion that can be replicated by another forensic examiner.

I commonly oppose professional engineers and fire investigators. I may or may not agree with their assessment.

With that said, you will see many comments about the Certified Forensic Locksmith. CFLs serve insurance companies nationwide examining reported stolen vehicles and claim to be able to determine how they were last driven.

I can support my conclusions because they are based on fact and the scientific method.

Other certifications were in forensic locksmithing, fire and explosion, vehicle fire Investigation. My experience with insurance claims is vast and goes back over 30 years.

In order to perform a competent forensic examination, evidence is required in order to replicate any examination that was performed previously.

I find this relevant when dealing with engineers and fire investigators. Forensic locksmiths, not so much! In my opinion, the forensic locksmith is a total fraud! The only forensics one will find with a forensic locksmith is the title he puts to his name on the report!

Evidence, a majority of the time there is none, or it has been secretly damaged by the forensic locksmith. There is one firm out there that uses the ruse of certification with the owner of the firm signing off on a report.

Forensic locksmiths are so blatant in their incompetence, projection and speculation serve as fact. Many attorneys are too impotent or incompetent to question then properly. Evidence from crime scenes is not preserved and the inept prosecutor thinks they have a case against be the defendant.

How can an opposing expert recreate the screen when no evidence was retained. The report may explain something was jammed in the key way. There is no explanation when, how and what the object was removed and that a key was inserted into the ignition afterward. Yet, to attempt to do peer review, it can’t be performed because the evidence was never retained as evidence, nor the vehicle and about 6 other pieces of evidence! Yet, the stupid DA has no problem pursuing the defendant for felonies. We are just supposed to take the word from one of these self-proclaimed forensic experts.

Worse yet, at one time or many, a judge took it on their own after a Vior Dire to classify these guys as experts. Did the judge understand the subject matter of a forensic locksmith? Of course not, but that hasn’t stopped them since 1999 and Daubert when the judge was made a gate keeper as to who could give expert testimony.

Some judges don’t flat out like an out of town expert critisiziing a local expert, even though their work product is do egregious that it should be criminal, because nothing performed had anything down as to the scientific method!

Insurance Companies Facilitate Fraud In Their Fraud Investigations

14 Saturday Dec 2019

Posted by smittydog1952 in key of the proper type

≈ Leave a comment

Fraudulent Forensics That Insurance Companies Use For Their Investigations and Denials In Auto Theft Claims
Rob Painter
1-866-490-1673
1-903-513-7808
Robo14@aol.com

What bothers as a highly qualified expert witness in auto theft, forensics and vehicle fire O&C?
Travesty of justice. I do not understand. Attorneys always looking for cases, especially those that require very little on their part and they seem uninterested in helping people and making money.

Look, I put 20+ years of reputation and credibility into my very successful career.

Opposing insurance companies is not easy. In many cases they appear to pick the most unprofessional, unethical law firms possible to defend their cases in my opinion. It doesn’t matter that their expert is operating fraudulently, the bottom line is to destroy my reputation by all means necessary by lying about my stellar extensive background to a judge or having an insurance friendly judge lie about me.

This is what I have had to endure over the years! From having 12 months stolen from mine and myex-wifes life being under federal investigation, only to have it closed after a 10 minute deposition with an inept federal DOJ prosecutor!

In Virginia in 2017 being threatened by the opposing prosecutor that I would be arrested for fraud on the witness stand (nothing like witness intimidation!) to having his experts disqualified for refusing to answer the subpoena intended for me. Then while on the stand to put up baseless lies about me addressed as fact from an insurance friendly judge from Las Vegas.

He lost the argument! The judge quashed the disqualification because I was not present at the heating to defend myself. That POS prosecutor came off like a big steaming pile!

However, if I am representing the carrier in a claim or case, I am then treated as a hero in the fight against fraud. Of course unlike the incompetent fraudulent forensic locksmiths I oppose, if I am accusing an insured of fraud, they have no chance to prevail! None! Might as well walk away or take a plea.

Here is my court record-25 years serving insurance companies in tens of thousands of forensic examinations of vehicles only 3 of my reports have been contested in court. Out of those 3, two went in favor of my insurance client. The third, I could prove the insured had not provided a missing transponder key. The jury did not care and felt sorry for the plaintiff because of his two repossessions.

Why is this record important? Absolutely no one in the forensic locksmithing and auto theft field has such a flawless record!

Kind of makes one wonder why these great forensic experts are in court all the time to defend their reports. Could it be they are that incompetent? Could it be that they are all frauds taking advantage of insureds with auto theft claims? The answer is both!

They appear to have no problem defrauding the courts as forensic experts either! Judges, you have all been played! For more than a decade across the US by every auto carrier.

I am completing an article in which I will be naming names. Not as a vicious personal attack because I know none of these forensic locksmiths personally. The purpose is to call out the blatant fraud that insurance companies use to initiate their fraud investigation of the insured. They are not competitors. They would technically be opposing forensic experts that don’t practice forensics and in my view are not experts at anything! They are a rubber stamp for the insurance company to investigate not an auto theft, but a fraudulent claim.

The insured rarely knows it at the time, but the fraudulent forensic locksmith has already inferred insured inbolvement as to having the last key used.

These goofs obviously do not know how to apply the scientific method to their reporting. The only thing forensic in their report is the self-applied forensic title they annointed themselves with.

I am not crazy nor do I have a personal vendetta. I believe in justice and the rule of law. I am not anti-insurance and support investigations not fraudulent clams. With all this said, attorneys both plaintiff and criminal defense think they have all the answers in auto theft claim denial cases and felony insurance fraud auto theft. Sorry to say, you don’t! The case is based on an independent forensic locksmith, engineer, dealer mechanic that has concluded the vehicle was last driven with a key of the proper type inferring the insured’s key. The amazing thing to me is that you attorneys, judges and juries believe this bull crap cloaked under the term forensics. You assume the title is valid because you don’t know a damn thing about it. You assume that the standards are similar to DNA, GSR (gun shot residue) etc just because of the title.

Let’s look at Certified Forensic Locksmith. Originally a credential offered by the international association of investigative locksmith which dissolved about 5 years ago and now is part of associated locksmiths of America. Do you see anything forensic in their titles? Of course not! This is a bunch of guys that put together what if? Situations which in many cases do not even take part in auto theft methodology. They know your ignorant and they can lie on the stand (and sometimes do, knowing you can’t catch them). Forensic locksmithing for the last decade has been a total fraud!
I have addressed this many times on this site but I want to make this very simplistic so everyone understands! On every auto theft claim the SIU, fraud is by default put into the investigation of the insured.
The investigator cannot arbitrarily accuse the insured of fraud. The investigator needs to know if the vehicle was actually stolen or if it was only made to look that way, so the investigator is reliant on a forensic expert to make this determination. Without knowing this information, the claim would have to be paid if an investigation was not performed.
Ignorance plays a role here as well. Investigators are taught today that almost all vehicles are equipped with anti-theft transponder systems making the vehicle unstealable.
With that in mind, the investigator goes to the company vendor list for experts in that area. They hand pick this independent forensic shop and assign the claim to them. Before establishing them as vendors did the carrier vet the work product of the forensic expert on the subject of auto theft and forensic locksmithing. In forensic science there is something known as error rate. How many times was the process applied to be found valid? 100% of the time? 50% of the time? 10% of the time. That is crucial because if the process is wrong 50% or 90% of the time, it’s unreliable and can’t be trusted and is known not as forensics, but junk science! This is only one thing that illustrates what a fraud this process of last ignition key used! There is no established scientific error rate! So all you are relying on is done guy’s opinion with no basis of fact!

In order to get a accepted error rate for a process, everything involved in that process has to be thoroughly described and set for any other forensic examiner to be able to repeat the exact same process and his conclusion should match to the original examiners. If not why not? What needs to be amended?
The next item is a very common and illustrates what a fraud forensic locksmithing is: evidence!!!! Rarely gathered unless easy to find such as in a burned vehicle where the ignition separates once melted and the wafers (tumblers) are spread on the driver’s floor debris field. Commonly the burned wafers are gathered up and sometimes a microscope is employed to look for tool marks. To fool juries, these charlatans would take these burned wafers and blow them up with microphotos and say they could see tool marks. This was an outright lie because when lock components are subjected to fire they get a crust on them, similar to when you are baking cookies. Well, these blown up pictures still had the crust on, so how are you going to see tool marks without x-ray vision? These clowns would be believed because sing the title of forensic and a blow up Go to with nobody knowing what to look for!
It is really difficult to replicate an examination when there is no physical evidence! The forensic expert these days no longer feels the need to gather evidence. Ignition’s are no longer removed, disassembled and examined under a microscope. It’s too much work. Why spend hours when you can get by in minutes? No one knows the difference! They will just believe the word of this forensic expert.
Let me put this even more simpler because some will still not understand.
The investigator wants to know how a reported theft was last driven. He assigns it to the forensic locksmith. The insured sends the keys and key fobs via US mail to the insurance company. They were lost in the mail. Did I mention the vehicle was never recovered? No I didn’t. Yet the forensic examiner authors a three page report with information about the description and operation theory about the anti theft system stolen right out of a factory service manual and placed in the report. This is commonly known as deflection or deception in order to make the reader to believe the vehicle is unstealable. The strangest thing though, he made the determination as to how the vehicle was last driven. It was last driven with a key of the proper type. The same conclusion used in totally burned vehicles and unburned vehicles he actually examined! That must be a very powerful crystal ball he used or he is a member of the physic friends network!
Obviously, the guy is a liar. He had no physical evidence to examine. The car could have been towed. Yet we are supposed to believe these jokers? I have the reports! Some have gone to court! Sometimes not seeing the forest for the trees, attorneys her hung up on the forensics not realizing there is no evidence. I have to bring them to earth.
Now, if that is not fraud, what is? Yet, insurance companies facilitate these frauds for their fraud investigation on the insured! This has been going on through the states for over a decade and insurers may be fairly accused and their auto theft claim is denied!
The insurance investigations on auto thefts are rigged! There are so many ways I can prove this forensic analysis is deliberate bull crap to deceive.
If they are so good in the forensic field, why can’t they specify the exact last key used? Because they are falsely claiming to use forensics when it’s nothing more than a word. Speculation, assumption and projection are masqueraded as fact. Our courts have been defrauded and insured convicted by stupid prosecutors that don’t reach the threshold beyond reasonable doubt, but have only the insurance supplied information of preponderance. These poor defendants are convicted on the testimony of these fraudulent forensic locksmiths.
In fact a low-life (my opinion) supervisor was boasting how my guy got convicted. I did not represent him as his expert. I just examined the vehicle. I found LA fire was lazy and incompetent. They said the fire started in the vehicle with a match. Of course I wanted to see the match which they could not supply. It was an obvious engine fire. The interior was destroyed as the fire progressed through the so called fire wall. This was a BMW with a smart key and a start switch. All plastic. All the wiring colored plastic insulation
for the computer was destroyed and bare. There was no way to test anything. The DA investigator asked the expert how it was last driven in it’s state. The expert stated it was last driven with a key fob of the proper type. The investigator said are you sure? The expert said absolutely!
There were two smart keys for this vehicle. Unless a thief made a third with a $300 key programmer from China. My question would be instead of the nebulous term key fob of the proper type, exactly which key fob was it? He would have had no clue exposing him as the fraud he is!
My questions, how can any fraud investigation be legitimate based on a fraud?

Rob Painter
1-866-49-1673
1-903-513-7808 email robo14@aol.com

02 Wednesday Oct 2019

Posted by smittydog1952 in auto theft, Auto theft SIU investigations, Insurer fraud, key of the proper type, SIU investigation consultant, SIU Investigation EUO Consultant For Insureds

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

auto theft claims, auto theft expert, auto theft investigation, automotive forensics, boat claims, car security, car theft claims, car theft expert, Car theft investigation, Court appointed umpire, EUO preparation Specialtist, Examination under oath Specialist, homeowners claims, SIU investigation consultant, vehicle security

Rob Painter’s CV (resume) and Services

Phone-1-866-490-1673
Cell 1-903-513-7808
Email robo14@aol.com
P.o. 261
Bonham, TX 75418

Texas Bonded and Licensed All Lines Public Adjuster
License# 2548231Texas Bonded and Licensed All Lines Public Adjuster
License# 2548231

Services

SIU investigation consultant. I teach people how to address investigations truthfully, but correctly. All based on my extensive hours of trial and deposition testimony.
Some feel that all they need to do is tell the truth, they have nothing to hide. The truth will not set you free in an insurance investigation.
Being the claim is in a SIU investigation tells you that there are red flags that were noted and the claim is generally scheduled for denial. It could be that the investigator received inaccurate information from their Certified forensic locksmith, indicating the vehicle was last driven with what is inferred to be the insured’s key. These so- called forensic locksmiths have yet to produce a report in which forensics was performed. The title sounds cool so they must be believed. No longer is the investigator looking at your claim in an unbiased matter. They are now convinced of the insured’s guilt and now it only a matter or creative writing to manufactured a motive.
Please do not misunderstand. The investigator is only as good as the information they rely on. This creates a mine field for the insured and all of those truthful statements can now be twisted around. I prevent this from happening especially in an examination under oath where the insured is giving sworn testimony.
Why you and not a lawyer? Because the Investigation and EUO have nothing to do with the law. Lawyers can tell you about the legal side of things, but it doesn’t help during an investigation.
Even in an EUO you are asked a question you don’t want to answer. You look over to your attorney. They object. You still have to answer the question. What if they drove into areas you don’t expect like if you have paid or claimed income on taxes? You can be asked anything and we guide you through it. Over the last 10 years, I have been extremely successful at getting these claims paid.
Far below is a list of all the testimony I have given in very adverse conditions. The insurance defense firms did everything possible to put me out of business and they did not succeed!

Texas Bonded and Licensed All Lines Public Adjuster
License# 2548231

Texas License to Carry a Firearm (2016-2021)
Florida Concealed Carry License since 1992.
Former Wisconsin Licensed Real Estate Broker 1994-2000
Federal Firearm Licensee (FFL Gun Dealer) 1987-1993
It is rare for an attorney to have a case published by Westlaw and other legal authorities to be used as a precedent. over my career over 20 of cases I interacted in have been published and with some,the complete trial transcripts are located on the web!
Inventor: Patent# 6,039,140 for the prevention of air bag theft-1999
Published Author: “Auto Theft-Let The Truth Be Known!” (1998) as well as about 60+ additional articles, books, and a 1,350 Power Point Slide training course on auto theft and forensic investigations.
Answered over 30,000 questions on vehicle repair and auto theft for insure.com and allexperts.com from 1994-2015 to assist consumers with their automotive and insurance issues.
Consultant/Expert in these areas:
Vehicle Theft
Vehicle Fire & Explosion
Vehicle Defect Analysis
Lemon Law Issues
Accident Reconstruction
Vehicle and Structure Security
Vehicle Component Failure Analysis
Firearms and Personal Protection
SIU Investigation Consultant/Expert
EUO Preparation Consultant/Expert
http://www.autotheftclaimsmaster.me
https://www.facebook.com/autotheftclaimsmaster/
https://www.facebook.com/cartheftmaster/
https://www.facebook.com/search/top/?q=auto%20theft%20siu%20investigation
Boomer1400@twitter
Formerly certified as a CFEI (Certified Fire & Explosion Investigator, CVFI (Certified Vehicle Fire Investigator), ASE Certified Auto Technician in Collision, Electrical and Med/Hvy Duty Truck, Certified Forensic Locksmith.
Oct 2018-March 2019 worked for an auto repossession company.

I have also been involved with recalled and potential recalled vehicles, with sudden accelleration, vehicle fires and NHTSA had a file under my name for a collection of underhood fires that I had determined.

Qualified to testify as an expert for the Defense in USAF Court Martials in the areas of Origin and Cause of Vehicle Fires, Transponder System Operation, Ignition Locks, Steering Columns, Auto Theft, and Vehicle Burn Debris Analysis. January 13, 2017, I testified for my second USAF court martial for the defense.

Court Cases: In the three cases in which I testified from October 1, 2014 to March 18, 2015 from AZ to MA to OH in which my side prevailed, which has been a common occurrence over my career. What made the last case interesting was after I testified, and was ready to head home, I ran across the opposing attorney that said only one thing. “You kicked our butts!” What an experience!
My complete court case record, where I was either deposed or gave trial testimony or both is listed in this CV. It does not take into consideration of all setttlements.
9/2014—Appointed by Dallas court to serve as “Umpire” in auto theft case settlement.
4/2014 Retained by the Maryland Attorney General’s office on a consumer fraud case.
December—2006 Appointed “Special Instructor” for the Darien, WI Fire Department
August—2006 Illinois Court (Cook County) appointed Umpire (Mediator)
Insurance Services

20+ years working with and training with Special Investigation Units. Hundreds of hours of sworn testimony. Has trained investigators on property claims investigations.
April-2006 Worked with Brad Stone of Newsweek from San Francisco on a story, which was published in 5-2006 about insurance fraud related to reported stolen vehicles and the so-called factory installed “Anti-Theft Systems known in the Wired Magazine as “Pinch my Ride.”

July-2004 Lead Forensic Examiner for San Francisco PD in a homicide investigation involving a reported stolen and recovered burned vehicle.
September-2004 Contacted by the TV show “Forensic Files” for a potential story to be aired.
Robert Painter is also cited in West Law in the case Sailsbury/Davis VS. State Farm as well as other cases. There are approximately 20 cases that I have been involved with that have been published by legal sources. Many are also on the Internet.
BUSINESS EXPERIENCE
Formed the non profit Forensic Institute on Auto Theft Analysis. Both organizations are
to set the standards in forensics as it relates to reported stolen vehicles and to provide
Training to examiners, fire service and law enforcement.
Founded the “International Association of Forensic Auto Theft Examiners.” Its purpose is to set the standards in the field of determining the last operation of a reported stolen vehicle.

• 1986 opened Auto Recovery Specialists Inc., providing exclusive repair of theft recovered and vandalized vehicles. The initial concept of the business was to return vehicles to their original shape before the theft, vandalism or fire. In 1987 bought the rights to the theft deterrent known as the “Chicago Collar”Ò.Duties include complete component replacement: dash, stereo system, interior,
locks and coding, rebuilding steering columns, repairing and installing vehicle security system components (factory and after market), engine components, body repair, glass replacement, repair and service of air conditioning components, brake and suspension repair, and replacement, wiring harnesses etc. to return vehicle to pre-theft condition.
• For 17 years directly involved in the repair of thousands of theft-recovered and fire damaged vehicles.
• Personally examined and rebuilt thousands of steering columns on both import and domestic vehicles
• Has never held himself out as a locksmith to the public, however during his tenure at Auto Recovery, cut thousands of keys and repined ignition, trunk and door locks and in fact was a locksmith for the company as well as everyone else working at Auto Recovery Specialiss Inc.
• Factory
• Internationally acknowledged as expert in auto theft including court, consulting with insurance companies, attorneys and law enforcement.
• Consultant on steering columns, locks, stereo systems and vehicle security for Special Investigation Units for many large insurance carriers during the past 10 years. Consulting services include but not limited to: How a vehicle was last operated (with or without keys in burned or unburned vehicles), Origin and Cause of vehicle fires, and vehicle defects. Has examined thousands of reported stolen vehicles in order to determine how they were last driven.
• Unlike mere locksmiths that serve as experts in how a reported stolen vehicle was last driven, Rob looks at these issues as a professional thief, considering the electronics he is trained in, and as someone that knows how to actually defeat just about any factory installed theft deterrent.
• Provides services as a consultant and researcher to attorneys and insurance companies, and public throughout the US in cases related to vehicles.
• Has worked with crime prevention officers throughout the US establishing training programs designed to protect the public from becoming victims of auto theft.

Insurance Claims Experience
20 years in insurance claims handling. With Auto Recovery, we were direct pay and handled the claim in its entirety, Wrote estimates, figured for betterment and diminished value, determined if vehicle was total loss. Handled everything related to the claim except for writing a check to the insured.
Rob Painter & Associates Inc, trained SIUs on auto theft and what indicators to be watched for in a questionable claim as to last operation. Attended seminars on insurance fraud, body language, investigation, interviewing procedures.
Trained in insurance fraud indicators .
Familiar with ISO Database.
Assisted in-house attorneys on the merits of claims as to pay or deny the claim.
Has reviewed over 100,000 pages of insurance activity notes, depositions, EUOs, affidavits.
Authors questions for insureds for the insurance carriers to be asked of the insured when giving recorded statements on the events surrounding the theft of their vehicles and for EUOs.
Authors questions for client attorneys for direct examinations in court in the proper court format as well as authors the questions for opposing experts as to accepted methodology. Authors questions for insurance SIU personnel as it relates to standard investigation methodology for depositions.
Has participated with client attorneys in hundreds of bad faith cases when the insured was denied coverage.
Has served as an instructor to insurance companies on the subjects of Forensic origin and cause examination of vehicle fires, auto theft and vehicle forensics. Although Rob’s certifications call him a fire investigator, Rob has never been a fire investigator. He performs the scientific method in order to perform a forensic fire analysis.
Currently serves as an Insurance SIU Investigation Consultant for insureds during the investigation, Prepares them for EUOs. Does not offer legal advice, but guides insureds as to his very extensive experience in these matters. Has 17 years experience with these in this area.
Commonly works under a POA (Power of Attorney) representing insureds investigated or denied on their auto theft claims.
Serves as a consultant to Insurance Defense attorneys, Plaintiff attorneys, Criminal Defense attorneys, Prosecutors, SIU personnel as it relates to issues involving auto theft claims.
25 years experience in the forensic examinations of reported stolen vehicles to determine the last operation of the vehicle.

• PATENT: 3/21/00 issued patent# 6,039,140 for 8 different variations of airbag anti-theft devices.
PUBLICATIONS
Currently author’s articles and test reports on an ongoing basis for insurance SIUs and the forensic/vehicle fire/theft industry.
Found at: https://www.linkedin.com/vsearch/f?type=all&keywords=rob+painter+ase%2Ccfei&orig=GLHD&rsid=&pageKey=member-home&trkInfo=tarId%3A1411064641854&search=Search
Published author: (4) linkedin Pulse articles 9/2014
• Petty Theft 2014 version.
• Insurance Fraud-Auto Theft
• For Those that Deny and Defy the Truth
• The Lies We Were Told About Vehicle Anti-Theft Systems
Published author:
• Forensic Auto Theft Examination Hypotheses-John Cooke Fraud Report- May 2013
• Published author: Anti-Theft v. Theft Deterrents– Insurance Industry Publication (January, 2006).
• Published author: The Truth about GM PASSLOCK-III revision (Hypotheses to be considered before rendering a conclusion) (Spring, 2005 IASIU—Insurance Industry Publication)
• Published author: (1,350 slide training course) Auto Theft/ Fraud Training Course) “The Modern Forensic Approach to Auto Theft Investigation.” (January, 2001)
• Published author: “Absolute Statements Made By Experts” (Insurance publication-Sept. 2003)
• Published author: “Locksmiths as Experts Reporting On Stolen Vehicles” (Insurance Publication-August 2003)
• Published author: “Uncovering The Truth in Burned Reported Thefts” (Insurance publication-August 2002)
• Published author: “Problems and Solutions in Vehicle Theft Determination” (Insurance publication December 2002)
• Published author: Master Keys”( Insurance publication- February-2003)
• Published author: “Variables to Be Considered In Vehicle Fire Investigation after Suppression.” (Insurance publication-November 2001)
• Published author: “Ford Magnesium Steering Columns and the Results to Ignition Components after a Fire”. Article for peer review from the fire and forensic community. (November 2001)
• Published author: “The Truth About GM VATS.” (Article) (November 2001)
• Published author: “The Truth About GM PASSLOCK TM” (Article) (November 2001)
• Published author:” Auto Theft Investigation: Hollywood vs. Reality” (Article) (February 2001) For the John Cooke Fraud Report.
• Published author: (Manual) “Forensic Vehicle Fire/ Arson and Auto Theft Investigation” (October 2000)
• Published author: (Article) “Petty Claims” for the John Cooke Fraud Report (October, 1998)
• Published author (Manual) “AUTO THEFT: LET THE TRUTH BE KNOWN!” (1998) (Previously distributed by Barnes & Nobel)
• Co-authored the investigation manual, “Surreptitious Entry & Auto Theft & Burn & the Investigator.” (1999)
• Authored test questions on the subject of steering columns and vehicle security for CFL (Certified Forensic Locksmith) designation to be given by the International Association of Investigative Locksmiths. January, 2000
• Published author: (Manual) “Saginaw Steering Columns-What Has Not Been Told” Training manual for fire investigators. (March 2000)
• Published (Article) “Beyond The Lock” (May 2000)
• Published Author: (Article) Fraud Defense Network-August, 2000 Edition-“Melting Steering Column Tests.” http://www.fraudreport.com/index.cfm?month=08&year=2000
• Published author: (Test Report) “Burned Toyota Steering Column Testing to Determine How Last Operated”. Tool marks and procedures. (December 1999) Currently at the FBI Crime Lab in Washington DC and the US Army Crime Lab in Atlanta, GA for peer review.
• Many more articles!!!!!
ACCOMPLISHMENTS
• Defeated the “unstealable” Ford Securilock transponder system for a court case 10/10/00. They said it could not be done!
• Primary designer of a state of the art “bait” car for a police department to catch car thieves.
• Worked with The National Highway Safety Transportation Administration and
discovered a potential fire hazard on a vehicle and determined origin and cause of under hood fires on this type of vehicle.
• Featured as “Auto Theft Expert” in the A & E auto theft documentary “Stealing Wheels” that aired July 26, 2000.
• Contacted by Sears and Edelman Marketing to be a national spokesman for an anti theft device for vehicles. (November 1999)
• Invited to provide evaluation and consulting to steering column engineers at Daimler Chrysler Corporation in Auburn Hills, MI (10/99). The purpose of this project was to demonstrate how steering column locking mechanisms could be defeated without the use of a key and how to reinforce the columns against theft.
• Court Qualified as an Auto Theft Expert and my videos of defeating columns were also accepted by a Cleveland, Ohio Court in October 1999 as a valid piece of evidence.
• Contacted by Disney Touchstone Pictures for technical assistance in making the movie “Gone in 60 Seconds” (March 1999)

CONSULTANT FOR FOLLOWING ORGANIZATIONS
• Former contributor for The Insurance News Network (Auto theft and prevention) includes heading a forum for the public on how to protect their vehicles for 3+ years.
• Former editor and consultant for the public on matters involving auto theft and prevention 2000-2001 on the web at http://www.autotheft_forum.com.
• The Insurance Career Center (Auto theft and fraud).
• National Association of Investigative Specialists (Auto theft and fraud)
• Expert Find (Auto theft and fraud}

TECHNICAL EXPERIENCE
• ASE (National Institute of Automotive Service Excellence) Formerly certified in Auto: brakes, steering and suspension, engine repair, manual drive train and axles, air conditioning. Med/Heavy duty truck: gasoline engine repair, electrical/electronic components. Collision: electric/electronic components. At Auto Recovery Specialists, never served as a general mechanic as opposing counsel likes to state. This business dealt exclusively in the repair of theft recovered vehicles and nothing else!
• SCRS (Society of Collision Repair Specialists) certified in airbags.
• ICAR (Inter-Industry Conference of Auto Collision Repair) trained.
EDUCATION
• American College of Forensic Examiners-Tested and given certificate as Diplomate Board Certified Forensic Examiner. Unlike opposing counsels like to espouse, this certificate does not mean I went to college.
• Racine, WI Vocational School
• Moraine Park Technical School
• Milwaukee Area Technical School
• General Motors Factory School
• AC Delco School
• Harnischfeger Corporation
• Unlike
PREVIOUS TECHNICAL EXPERIENCE
• 1974-1986 Auto technician and management for Oldsmobile dealerships full
time or part time, on and off for those years.
• 1976-1984-Harnishfeger Corp. (Mining Manufacturer) Expeditor, Assembly, Machinist, heat treat and non-destructive testing: Ultra Sonic Testing, Magnetic Particle Testing.

ADDITIONAL TRAINING
• WSATTI (Western States Auto Theft Investigators)-Vehicle Tracking Laguna Hills, CA (Jan 2004)
• NAFI (National Association of Fire Investigators)-Vehicle Fires-Eastern Kentucky University- (Sept and Oct 2002)
• IAIL (International Association Of Investigative Locksmiths) Atlantic City, New Jersey (June 2002)
• IAAI (International Association of Arson Investigators) (5 day seminar) Milwaukee, WI (May 2002)
• NCRC/ IAATI (International Association of Auto Theft Investigators) Auto Theft Seminar (4 days)- Indianapolis, IN (May 2002)
• National Association of Professional Insurance Investigators. (November 2001)-Cincinnati, Ohio
• Electrical Fire Investigation- Public Agency Training Council- Brown Deer, WI (August 2000)
• Insurance Fraud Seminar –SCIFI- Columbia SC (November 1999)
• Forensic Locksmithing-ALOA- Cincinnati (July 1999)
• Bomb and Explosion Seminar -Public Agency Training Council-Racine, WI PD (April 1999)
• Arson Seminar Public Agency Training Council- Racine, WI PD- (April 1999)
• Fire Investigation Training Seminar -Myrtle Beach S.C. (October 1998)
• Public Agency Training Council-Electrical Fire Investigation (August 1998)
• AVCAW Vehicle Fire Seminar-also taught Plover WI. (May 1997)
• Vehicle fire training seminar-Myrtle Beach, South Carolina (October 1997)
• AVCAW fraud seminar-also spoke Wisconsin Dells, WI (November1997)
SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS

Speaker for Horace Mann SIU- Auto Theft Methodology- Irvine, TX
(May 8, 2014)

• Speaker for TIIAA Vehicle forensics, transponders, auto theft-Dallas, TX (November, 2012)

• Instructor for fire investigators on the methods used on how to determine Origin and Cause of Vehicle Fires. (Parker, Colorado February, 2007)

• Instructor on depositions and court testimony as well as protocol to fire fighters. (Darien, WI Fire Department January, 2007)

• Speaker for Safeco Insurance —Vehicle Forensics-Vehicle Fires—-Indianapolis, IN (May, 2006)

• Speaker for MetLife —Vehicle Forensics-Vehicle Fires—-Freemont, IL (Feb 2006)

• Speaker for Harleysville Insurance—Vehicle Forensics—Edina, MN (July, 2005)

• Speaker for Safeway Insurance—Vehicle Forensics—Chicago, IL (June, 2005)

• Instructor—Litigation Support-Gieco Attorneys– Speaker for Country Insurance—Las Vegas, NV (May, 2005)

• Speaker for Las Vegas, PD—Vehicle Forensics—Las Vegas, NV (May, 2005)

• Speaker for Met Life Insurance—Vehicle Forensics—Las Vegas, NV (May, 2005)

• Speaker for Country Insurance—Vehicle Forensics—Las Vegas, NV (May, 2005)

• Speaker for Liberty Mutual Insurance- Vehicle Forensics as it relates to theft-Naperville, IL (March, 2005)

• Speaker for Liberty Mutual Insurance- Vehicle Forensics as it relates to theft-Indianapolis, IN (February, 2005)

• Speaker for Safeco Insurance- Vehicle Forensics as it relates to theft-Indianapolis, IN (February, 2005)

• Speaker for Apollo Insurance- Vehicle Forensics as it relates to theft –Des Plaines, IL (January 2005)

• Speaker for Bristol West Insurance Company-Auto theft/ Fire and Transponders –Anaheim, CA- (May 2004)

• Speaker for the International Association of Special Investigation Units (IASIU) Vehicle Theft/ Fire-Pomona, CA (April 2004)

• Speaker for Geico Insurance Company- Vehicle Theft/ Fire-San Diego, CA- (April 2004)

• Speaker for Geico Insurance Company- Vehicle Theft/ Fire-Las Vegas-NV- (February 2004)

• Speaker for Indiana Farm Bureau—Anti -Theft/ Plaintiff Attorney Arguments (Sept. 2003 Monticello, Indiana)

• Speaker For Regional MetLife Conference – Electronic Theft Deterrents and Plaintiff Arguments (July 2003 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida)

• Speaker On Auto Theft And Forensics for MetLife in Naperville, Illinois (March 2003)

• Interviewed as an “Auto Theft Expert” for WBZ Television in
Boston, MA (February 24, 2003)

• Forensic Steering Column Analysis. Pacific Locksmith Association-Seaside, OR- (December 2002)

• Auto Theft Methods/ Locks and Columns—American Ambassador-Itasca, IL (April 2002)

• Forensic Report Writing Seminar- Illinois Chapter of Special Investigation Units- (January 2002-Schaumberg, IL)

• Auto Theft and Fraud Seminar- American Express Insurance Company- (June, 2001-Greenbay, WI)

• Auto Theft and Fraud Seminar- (May 2001-NCRC- Iowa)

• Auto Theft/Fraud/Vehicle Fires. San Antonio, TX (November, 2000) This seminar was for continuing DOJ Education.
· ATLA- (Trial Lawyers) Steering columns and locks. Indianapolis, IN (June, 2000)

• IAAI (International Association of Arson Investigators-Florida Chapter) Advanced Vehicle Fire and lock investigations. Tallahassee FL. (June, 2000)

• IAIL (International Association of Investigative Locksmiths) Steering columns and locks. Egg Harbor, NJ (May 2000)

• SCLA (South Carolina Locksmiths Association) Steering columns and locks. Columbia, SC (April 2000)

• Baltimore County Regional Auto Theft Team Subject: Auto theft Baltimore, MD (March, 2000)

• Speaker for Daimler Chrysler Corporation Topic: How to increase security in their vehicles. (October 1999}
· Guest speaker at two seminars for AVCAW (Anti-Vehicle Crime Association of Wisconsin) composed of law enforcement and insurance personnel. Topic: “What to look for in auto theft” (October 1995).
• Speaker for IAATI (International Association of Auto Theft Investigators) for 300 law enforcement and insurance personnel on steering columns and locks. (May 1996)
• Speaker for State Farm field damage appraisers on how to detect fraud in an auto theft claim. (July 1996)
• Speaker for the Sentry Insurance claims office in Stevens Point, WI to train adjusters on what to look for in a fraud claim. (Sept. 1996)

Court Cases:
Stropki VS Progressive 11/1999
Ohio State Court-Cleveland, OH
Stropki-Client– Vehicle theft/ fire

Holiday VS Progressive
Oregon State Court-April 2002
Holiday-Client– Vehicle theft/ fire

State of California VS Youngbloode
Los Angeles Criminal Court-11/2002
Youngblood Client– Vehicle theft/ fire

State of New Jersey VS Dente Towing
Newark Criminal Court-5/2003
Dente Towing Client— Vehicle theft

Burnett VS American Ambassador
Dupage County, IL Civil Court 4/2003
Client: American Ambassador Insurance Company– Vehicle theft/ fire

State of New York VS Moray
Westchester County Criminal Court-8/2003
Moray-Client— Vehicle theft
–
Greines VS Ford Motor Company
Los Angeles Circuit Court-1/2004
Greines-Client— Vehicle theft/transponder

O’Connell VS Arbella Insurance Company
Quincy, MA Circuit Court-4/2004
O’Connell-Client– Vehicle theft

Truchinski VS MetLife
Joliet, IL June 2004
Client: MetLife– Vehicle theft/ fire

Kettina VS State Farm
Chicago, IL May, 2005
Cook County Court
Client: Kettina– Vehicle theft/ fire

Mannian VS CSAA
Superior Court Of California-Fresno, CA June, 2005
Fresno County Court
Client: Mannian– Vehicle theft/ fire/transponder

USAF V. Jackson
Edwards AFB-California (July, 2005)
Client-Jackson– Vehicle theft/ fire

State of California (Kern County) VS Yates
Bakersfield, CA (July 2005)
Kern County Court
Yates: Client– Vehicle theft

Sidu VS Farmers
Superior Court of California-Fresno County Court (April 2006)
Client Sidhu— Vehicle theft

Superior Court of California–Santa Clara County (August, 2006)
State VS Diaz
Diaz-Client– Vehicle theft/ fire/transponder

Federal Court- San Francisco, CA (October, 2006)
Stecz V State Farm
Client: Stecz– Vehicle theft

McCoy VS Progressive Insurance
Superior Court of California (March 2007) Los Angeles, CA
Client: McCoy– Vehicle theft/ fire/transponder

Jackson VS MetLife
Arapahoe County, CO 3/2008
Client: MetLife—Vehicle theft/transponder

Issa VS Allstate Insurance
Wayne County, MI 4/2008
Client: Issa—Vehicle theft/transponder

Santos VS Skylands Insurance
Newark, NJ 6/2008
Client: Santos—Vehicle Theft/Transponder

Rosel v. Allstate
Miami, FL 5/2009
Client: Rosel—Vehicle Theft/Transponder/Fire

Pershad v. Unitrin
Miami, FL 5/2009
Client: Pershad—Vehicle Theft/VATS

4/2010–Trial
People v. James
Trial in Carow, MI
Client: James-Vehicle theft/ignition/transponder/fire

5/25/2011

Todd v. Coast Insurance Company
San Bernardino County, California
Client: Todd Theft/anti theft GM Passlock

6/30/2011

Arble v. State Farm
Albuquerque Federal Court
Client: Arble—Consultant turned expert to opine on State Farm’s Expert competency as to methodology on reported stolen recovered burned Chrysler as to last driven.

10/2014

People v Cox
Tucson AZ Superior court-Ford PATS-Unrecovered F 150
Client: Cox

10/2014

People v Rogers
New Bedford, MA Superior court -GM PK III-Burned 2008 Equinox
Client: Rogers

3/2015
Bailey v Grange Insurance Co.-Burned 2008 Enclave
Franklin County of Common Pleas
Columbus, OH
Client: Bailey

6/2016
Maumee Valley Credit Union v Nunn
Lucas County Court of Common Pleas
Toledo, Ohio
Client: Nunn

1/2017
USAF v Otanez
Fairchild AFB Washington State
Tele-testimony from Texas
Client-Otanez

9/2017
Stafford County VA v Vaught
Stafford, VA
Client Vaught

Depositions:
Heady VS State Farm
Louisville Kentucky Federal Court-4/1999
Heady-Client– Vehicle theft/ fire/VATS

Stropki VS Progressive
Ohio State Court-5/1999
Stropki-Client– Vehicle theft/ fire

Thompson VS State Farm
Louisville Kentucky Federal Court-3/2000
Thompson-Client– Vehicle theft/ fire

Baron VS Warrior Insurance Company
Illinois State Court-3/2002
Baron-Client– Vehicle theft/ fire

Mediation Hearing-Truchinski VS MetLife
Illinois State Court-5/2003
MetLife-Client- Vehicle theft/ fire

Greines VS Ford Motor Company
California State Court-1/2004
Greines-Client– Vehicle theft/ fire/transponder

O’Connell VS Arbella Insurance Company
Quincy, MA Circuit Court-3/2004
O’Connell-Client- Vehicle theft

Hampton VS State Farm Insurance Company
Kansas City, MO-5/2004
Client: Hampton– Vehicle theft/ fire

Kourosh Sajjadi VS Permanent General Insurance Company
Santa Ana, CA- May 2004
Client: Kourosh Sajjadi – Vehicle theft/transponder

Guiertiez VS CSAA
Fresno, CA June 2004
Client: Guiertiez-Vehicle theft/fire
Guiertiez VS CSAA
Fresno, CA July 2004
Client: Guiertiez
Guiertiez VS CSAA
Fresno, CA August 2004
Client: Guiertiez
Sailsbury/ Davis VS State Farm
Hammond, IN December, 2004
Client: Sailsbury/Davis—Vehicle theft/ fire

State of Iowa VS Turner
Deposition taken over phone when I was in Los Angeles
January, 2005
Client: State of Iowa– Vehicle theft/ fire

Kettina VS State Farm
Chicago, IL April, 2005
Client: Kettina– Vehicle theft/ fire

Mannian VS CSAA
Fresno, CA April, 2005
Client: Mannian– Vehicle theft/ fire/transponder

Sidu VS Farmers
Fresno, CA June, 2005
Client: Sihdu— Vehicle theft

Salizar VS Farmers Insurance
Fresno, CA July, 2005
Client: Salizar– Vehicle theft

Ledin VS Mercury Insurance
Tampa, FL August, 2005
Client-Ledin– Vehicle theft/transponder

Turner VS.Sterling Insurance\
Irvine, CA November 2005
Client: Turner- Vehicle theft/ fire

Serenas V. Infinity Insurance
Irvine, CA June, 2006
Client: Serenas– Vehicle theft/ fire

McCoy V. Progressive
Los Angeles, CA November, 2006
Client: McCoy- Vehicle theft/ fire/transponder

Nobels V. Ampac Insurance
State of Alabama
March, 2007 in Milwaukee, WI
Client: Nobels– Vehicle theft/transponder

Klajic V, State Farm
State of Indiana
May, 2007
Client: Klajajic– Vehicle theft/ fire/transponder

Issa VS Allstate Insurance
Wayne County MI (Held in Langlade County, WI via telephone)
April 2008
Client: Issa Vehicle theft/transponder

Rosel v. Allstate
Miami, FL 2/2009
Client: Rosel—Vehicle theft/transponder/fire

Nunn v. State Farm
Dallas, TX 8/2009
Client: Nunn Theft/transponder

3/2010
Lawley v.Esurance
Denver case with deposition taken in Dallas, TX
Client: Lawley Vehicle theft/transponder

2/2011
Daranyi v. Liberty Mutual
Atlanta case with deposition taken in Plano, TX
Client: Daranyi Vehicle theft/ignition/transponder/fire

3/2011

Winters v American Ambassador
Chicago, IL case with deposition taken in Dallas,TX
Client: American Ambassador Insurance-Vehicle theft/ignition/transponder

3/2011
Moore v American Ambassador
Chicago, IL case with deposition taken in Dallas, TX
Client: American Ambassador Insurance-Vehicle theft/ignition /VATS

3/31/2011

Abrble v State Farm
Albuquerque, NM Case
Deposition held in Irving, TX
Client: Arble- Fire, theft, transponder

4/2/2012 Johnson v State Farm
Deposition held in Ft Worth, TX -New Orleans Federal case
Client: Johnson-Vehicle theft/transponder/fire

5/2012 Dane v Gieco
Deposition held in Greenville, TX
Las Vegas, Nevada
Client: Dane-Vehicle Theft/ Transponder

7/2012 Smith v Unitrin
Deposition held in Dallas, TX
Tampa Florida case
Client: Unitrin-Vehicle forensics, auto theft, transponder

11/2012 Gerke v Travelers/Valley Forge
Federal case-Portland, OR
Client: Gerke-Ignition, vehicle theft

11/2012 Morros v State Farm
Deposition held in Dallas, TX
Mississippi Federal case
Client: Morros-Vehicle theft, forensics, transponder

01/2015 Bailey v Grange Insurance
Deposition held in Greenville, TX
Ohio state case
Client: Bailey

2/27/2018 Murphy v Progressive
Deposition in Pearland, TX
Texas Case
Client: Murphy

Mediation Deposition:
Taylor VS American Ambassador
Chicago, IL September 2004
Client: American Ambassador—Vehicle theft/fire

Arbitration:
Herrejon VS Progressive Insurance
Portland, OR September 2004
Client: Herrejon– Vehicle theft

Public Service Hearing:
County of Los Angeles VS Clarence Johns-5/2003
Johns-Client— Vehicle theft/ fire

All of this combined with over 17 years of exclusively in the direct repair of over 10,000 theft recovered vehicles, as well as the claims handling makes Rob Painter’s background in ignition systems, transponder systems, vehicle fire and forensics very extensive as it would relate to any reported stolen vehicle.
30 years of examining theft recovered vehicles for insurance companies.

The Thrill Of The Chase

25 Monday Feb 2019

Posted by smittydog1952 in key of the proper type

≈ Comments Off on The Thrill Of The Chase

People have asked what keeps me interested in automotive forensics after 25 years. I tell them it is the thrill of the chase. Insurance investigators, Fire investigators, Cops, Engineers understand this all too well.

Every situation whether it is a vehicle crash, a theft, a vehicle fire, a potential defect have one thing in common. That is the huge question of what happened? What happened to cause the current question.

The thrill of the chase is when one finds the undisputed answer as to what exactly happened preceeding the event. Let’s take the Dodge Ram that was known for dash fires at the instrument panel. The first one I ran across was a full burn out, but I found exactly where the wires arced which would have been consistent with the instrument panel. To the layman, this vehicle was totally destroyed by fire and yet the answer was found as to the origin and cause of the fire.

What was really cool was that a couple months later, I was assigned to do an O&C on another Dodge Ram of the same make and model. The difference was that the windows were closed and the fire was starved of oxygen and self-suppressed. Everything was intact except for one gauge package on the instrument panel. The origin was exactly in the same place as the total burned, which sealed the deal! There was no question as to where the fire initiated and the reason was the same arced wires. This situation was so prevalent Chrysler had a stop build and transport orders. These vehicles were burning up on the trains! Chrysler managed to get the issue taken care of, but this is the thrill of the chase when you can answer with full certainty that the reason for the fire was because of a theory and that theory was found t be accurate!

GM Fuel Line fires under the hood. This was a common scenario in which, the main pressurized fuel line would rupture and spill fuel on ignition sources such as a hot exhaust manifold, puddle and ignite the plastics in the area. The plastic fuel lines would decompose and turn brittle. Any movement directly or indirectly would cause the line to fracture. If there was a tune up performed and the tech had his hand on the plastic line it could rupture. One Aurora had an engine mount changed and just by moving the engine around caused this calamity.

Just on the 1997 Olds Aurora there were over 100 consumer complaints of under hood fires and never a recall issued. Complaints of a fire that would go out when the ignition was turned off. The reason was that the fuel pump was no longer powered.

Finding this event to be true was another thrill of the chase moments.

Ford had claimed their first generation PATS transponder system made the statement that such equipped vehicle was virtually unstealable. Dealer techs, locksmiths all stated the system could not be beat. I studied the wiring schematics and had a theory. Ford used a very common Bosche relay controlling the system. I came up with theories as to how to bypass the relay by taking terminals 87 and 30 putting a wire across them. The end result by me thinking like a thief was that I had successfully bypassed the system. My bypass was applied by others and worked on every Ford SUV and truck! This was definitely a thrill of the chase moment!

I had a Chev Truck with a fatality crash. The air bags did not deploy and there was no obvious reason they didn’t. We checked the air bag system. No faults. I had to drive to the Tennessee mountains to find the answer to what happen. After recreating the event with a like kind truck, I found the answer. This vehicle only had one recall for the Takata air bags exploding and sending missiles into the occupants. There were a couple consumer complaints where the air bags did not deploy, but the number was not significant.

I thought about a recall I had been involved in, but this truck was not recalled for a faulty ignition switch. However it had the same ignition and style of key of the recall. I then took into consideration as to the terrain the truck passed through before crashing. Everything was consistent with the recall. If the vehicle hit a bump, the ignition could rock back to off and shut the engine off and air bags would not deploy. This vehicle crossed a median and approached the step up of the black top of the entrance ramp it crossed causing the truck to launch with the wheels at least 41″ above the pavement to clear the guardrail and hitting a bunch of trees on at least a 6% grade until it landed where it was found. Weather was considered, pavement conditions at 3 am with a 25 mph warning on the ramp with a hair pin curve.

When all was said and done, everything matched the on site crash investigator’s report a couple years previous. I generated a report for the estate to consider a case against GM for the ignition recall.

That is why I do what I do. Not always are answers to questions so stark, but finding the answer is an emotional high! That is the thrill of the chase!

Rob Painter

robo14@aol.com

http://www.autotheftclaimsmaster.me

1-866-490-1673

1-903-513-7808 cell

Forensic Deception Applied To Stolen Vehicles

22 Friday Feb 2019

Posted by smittydog1952 in key of the proper type

≈ Comments Off on Forensic Deception Applied To Stolen Vehicles

Tags

auto theft, ignition experts, key of the proper type, last key used, stolen car and how it was last driven

Written by Rob Painter

If your car is stolen and you submit a claim, be aware the deck is stacked against you immediately! You are under investigation because the claim has fraud indicators. Those indicators are your car is impossible to steal! Before the investigation begins, the investigator needs to know if the anti theft devices were compromised wee they would pay the claim. If not, they have a third party vendor that will accuse you of fraud!

At this point, you may feel you will just tell the truth which almost guarantys a denial. Your insurance company is not your friend and now the investigation no longer unbiased and will work t prove your guilt. It doesn’t matter if yo are innocent! The investigator will build a case making you appear to be guilty! That’s what they do! I have other pages describing how I can help you in these troubling times. Here I am displaying what you are up against!

1-866-490-1673
Cell 1-903-513-7808

Robo14@aol.com

I am going to address the industry of forensic locksmithing as applied to reported stolen vehicles to determine how the vehicle was last driven.

I can state in my opinion over the last decade, this industry has been a total fraud, a Con, a Scam. The industry is used as a third party investigation tool to accuse the insured of involvement of a bogus theft claim. This has devastated insureds financially, reputations destroyed as well when prosecuted, conviction rates are very high.

Someone could argue that my opinion is just sour grapes and that I have no facts to support my opinions. That my examination methods are secret and are what should be applied. The opposing lawyers try everything possible to attack me to diminish anything I say.

Well, here it is, my opinion about this fraudulent industry is one thing, it is quite another to be supported by fact and that it is.

Forensic locksmithing in its current state thrives on ignorance. The less one knows about auto theft and how forensics is supposed to play a role, the better it is for the expert using a bogus forensic title.

It is meant to be perceived that being self taught in forensics, that the examination processes I use are strictly subjective and that I am wrong and everyone in the industry is right. The truth of the matter is that my forensic methodology is built on a nationally accepted guide, which in courts is commonly used as the standard to fire investigation, the NFPA 921. I have taken the information from there and applied it to any type of vehicle examination I am doing. This can be for the origin and cause of a vehicle fire. A potential defect that may prompt a recall, and of course vehicle thefts.

How can you use methods applied in fire investigation and relate them to a theft? The subject matter may be different, but the principles are the same.

I apply what I know about theft and use those principals. Using the scientific method, everything is required to be scientifically verifiable. To be scientifically verifiable, another examiner should be able to apply the same principles, examine the same evidence and reach the exact same conclusion.

The first problem I run into opposing one of these experts commonly, evidence such as the ignition lock was never removed or retained. First, that means they never disassembled the ignition lock to determine if there were identifiable marks in the tumblers that could be traced back to a specific key.

Since there was no evidence retained and the vehicle was disposed of, how can someone replicate the examination? The examination obviously can’t be replicated. The conclusion however is a one size fits all and will blend in with any examination. It does not specify the recent use of a specific key, but instead the use of any key. The conclusion is ready made for any report and assumed to be the insured’s key was last used. The conclusion is the vehicle was last driven with a key of the proper type. This encompasses any key, the insureds first key, second key, and in the case of a used car, an unaccounted for key. It can be a thief’s key. This conclusion covers it all and everything else in the report is all fluff.

To demonstrate this farther, a vehicle does not even need to be recovered and the physical evidence examined. There are “forensic” reports written on vehicles that were never recovered and the conclusion of proper key fits perfectly! This is what we are dealing with folks! Deception that controls the destiny on an insured’s life!

Insurance defense attorneys are good at twisting fact to defend their client. After all the defense of their client is their job, but they take it to the extreme. I am going to lay out real statements made by experts to support their stance of insured involvement. To the novice, it sounds like there is a good reason of motive on the part of the insured. As I address further, you will see pure speculation serving as fact by the expert. The defense gets mad at me because I rain on their parade, but all I want to see is fact and truth. Both of which, I don’t seem to find in any forensic report I review on reported stolen vehicles.

Let’s start with a Texas case. The names won’t be mentioned to protect the guilty. (Insurance company and expert)

We start with a reported stolen 2 wheel drive Dodge Ram. The expert examines the vehicle. This vehicle was equipped with what is known as a POD key. The ignition has no wafers (tumblers) and the only reason for the key blade being attached to the key fob is if battery power is lost, the key can be inserted into the driver’s door lock to unlock the door. Other key’s used for this vehicle, are just a plastic key fob. The plastic key fob is inserted into the ignition socket in the dash.

There are also after market kits in which one can install a simple start button and the key fob sits in a pocket or purse.

It is very interesting as to how the expert plays mind reader into the un-caught thief’s mind as to why he did or did not do something. Yet, this is done all the time by these experts and the statements made by the experts are treated as fact. After all they are forensic, which must make them clarevoyent as well! They are the experts, how dare you dare question them?

From the way the report was written, The examine was bias towards the client the insurance carrier, where only facts should have been addressed without the unfactually based commentary diluting the facts.

This vehicle was recovered what I would call stripped. The engine and components associated with it including the computer, radiator and transmission were all missing. All wheels and tires on this dually had been switched except for the left front. The flat bed and additional fuel tank were missing.

The ignition socket was broken. With the socket being broken, it could no longer incorporate a key fob. This damage was considered by the expert to be caused by the insured attempting to make the ignition look like it was defeated. In other words a staged theft. It is possible that this vehicle was subject of a staged theft, but it is also possible it wasn’t. The expert in his report assumed it was staged without having any evidence to confirm or deny.

He then attempted to get the mileage to the vehicle, but could not get the ignition in the on position pl

. Instead, he used the oil change sticker that was about a year old. He used the oil change sticker to guess the milage at the time of the exam.

He then went on as to how the engine in this type of truck was problematic and known for failure. To summarize the report, the ignition was damaged, and truck probably had bad engine, which had been removed to simulate a theft.

There were major issues in this assumption being treated as fact by the expert and defense attorney.

#1 How does the expert prove another key fob was not made for this vehicle? He had already established the vehicle had been force entered. He did the major mistake that most experts do. He relied on factory supplied information that does not take into consideration the after market when it comes to key programmer ng equipment to generate a functioning key fob. When I say after market, I am referring to locksmiths and thieves making keys to these vehicles using after market key programmers. This expert cannot prove one way or the other as to how this vehicle was last driven. The computer was not present to interrogate.

We don’t know why the ignition was damaged. Was it just an act of vandalism? No one knows, but the expert went far from his expertise assuming the damage was done by the insured to make it look like this was a theft. This statement was purely speculative deliberately meant to appear to be fact!

The expert went on to say that the type of diesel that was in this truck was known for failure. To assume that this engine was bad and removed from the vehicle to make a false claim is ludicrous. The transmission was missing too! Whoever removed the engine was not a hack, pure professional! Wiring harnesses disconnected and not cut. If smart enough to remove the engine, would not have been stupid enough to damage the ignition to make it look like theft. Bottom line there were no facts to tell us why the ignition socket was broken. It could have been an accident by the thief. To make a statement of fact that the key fob would no later longer start the engine is even a stretch because the electronics and the engine were missing, so where is the fact that proves that even with the breakage, the engine would not have started? There It s no fact! The only fact is that the area surrounding the front b socket was broken! I even asked the attorney if the insured had a mechanical background and was told he did not. The components removed were you targeted by a professional technician such as myself. An example would be: There were times I drove a car home. Park in garage and remove the engine. It was still warm removed!

This truck could have been towed in seconds! Working for a repo company recently, it is conceivable to pick this truck up from the rear and be gone in 20 seconds! Did the expert consider towing or the use of a reprogrammed key fob? No! His goal was to pacify the insurance company (his client) by even supplying a motive that this type of engine was problematic and assuming the engine was reminded very and reported as a theft for the insurance company to pay for a new engine! His argument however is a double edge word. Was the engine stolen because it was good to replace a bar engine in another vehicle?

It is not the examiners job to speculate on things he can’t prove, yet he did! There were no signs of oil leaks.

He looked at this truck as a fraudulent claim. He supplied his report which initiated the investigation which led to the denial of the claim. In theory, he is supposed to be unbiased.

The other problem I have found in this industry is no one has any experience in auto theft. They will argue they have been doing theft investigations for insurance companies for years to insurance companies. And how does that give them experience in auto theft? They are concluding if the car was or was not stolen based on what?

Have they ever stolen a vehicle? No! Have they ever repaired theft recoveries to determine theft signatures? No! Do they think like a car or thief? No! All these charlatans are in my opinion is the rubber stamp of denial for their client insurance company!

Was the expert aware of the condition of the engine from this truck? Of course not! It wasn’t present to examine. The narrative made was that someone went to extensive work to remove the engine and transmission because the engine was bad and then not knowing how to start the truck without the key fob destroyed the ignition. This is all conjecture on the part of the expert, but was used as fact in the investigation of the claim by the investigator. The investigator is only as good as the information with a slant the expert supplies.

We all know insurance companies are going to use experts that will write favorable reports for them. The problem is that these forensic exams are subjective and we are just supposed to take the expert’s word for it. Why? Why are we dealing with un-based opinion and masquerading the conclusion as fact without the supposition?

Here is an example used in a criminal case. You know, evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. This is the only industry I know of that can get away using speculation as fact!

Vehicle: Reported stolen Chev Equinox recovered burned.

The prosecutions case was built on the forensic expert’s statement that the vehicle was last driven with a key of the proper type.

Expert states that appeared as though someone had been to the vehicle before him and the burn debris that had fallen to the driver’s floor appeared to be displaced. Consistent with someone digging through the burn debris.

Expert could not find the ignition lock or any remains of it. He had found a dent puller with a broken screw attached on the driver’s floor. His factual statement (sarcasm) was he did not locate the ignition, but if he would have found the ignition, it may have had the broken screw piece May have been in the keyway.

The expert also stated that the vehicle was equipped with the PK III transponder system, in which his company was not aware of this system being defeated.

In court when I testified, I demonstrated 5 different ways the vehicle could be stolen without the use of the insured’s keys. Because the vehicle was destroyed by fire, not one of those methods could be ruled out with forensics, and in this case, the ignition was not located. The fire damage took away any possibilities of determining if the PK III had been bypassed. The expert made appear as fact that because his company never saw te system bypassed it must not have never happened. That statement just demonstrated how ignorant he and his company were on the bypass of that system. Its been in use since 1997 and many know how to bypass the system.

In essence the facts to this case are is that the vehicle was reported stolen, recovered burned. As to how it was last driven the conclusion would be inconclusive due to lack of evidence.

Not only did the insured get denied on his theft claim, but he was left paying out thousands of dollars on a defense attorney and for my expert consultation. All because this expert wanted to look like a hero to the insurance company and prosecution!

Unfortunately, just about every report I review frm these insurance experts is the same ole’ assumption that is portrayed as fact.

Evidence Gathering On A Reported Stolen Vehicle To Determine How It Was Last Driven.

24 Thursday Jan 2019

Posted by smittydog1952 in key of the proper type

≈ Comments Off on Evidence Gathering On A Reported Stolen Vehicle To Determine How It Was Last Driven.

Unfortunately, I have seen some absolutely horrid evidence Gathering, lack of retention, destruction of physical evidence by the opposing self-proclaimed “forensic” experts I have opposed.

This is not to say incorrect decisions were made as to removal and a better way could have been applied. That happens sometimes and could be a teaching experience.

Where I have seen the real problem in my view is criminal cases. This could be extremely devestating to the defendant, and how can the attorney defend against it in these sham Certified Forensic Locksmith Conclusions.

Since the attorneys on both sides know nothing about theft methodology and how forensics is applied, they are just left with the assumption the expert is using a forensic title, it must be a valid discipline. That simply is not true the way it has been applied.

Auto Theft Claim Denial Cases, SIU Investigation

Featured

≈ Comments Off on Auto Theft Claim Denial Cases, SIU Investigation

Tags

Chad tredway, Foil on ignition key, Fraudulent auto theft claim, Fraudulent car theft claim, key of the proper type, last key used, Mark ames, North American West, Robert mangine, Ryan ames

Rob Painter

1-866-490-1673

1-903-513-7808

Robo14@aol.com

Here is the root cause to these cases:
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-humes-forensic-evidence-20190113-story.html?

This is what stands in the way of insured’s being paid for their theft claims, and makes the difference between a clean record or conviction on auto theft claims/cases. This story has nothing to do with auto theft, but the junk science of forensics. The same junk science applied by insurance carrier vendors when determining the last key used in a reported stolen vehicle.

You may say “This sounds to complicated, stolen vehicles and forensics.” Do not fear!

I am here to tell you dealing with these claims/cases for over 25 years as an expert witness, I can assure you I have everything behind the claim/case down to a perfect science either serving as a consultant or an expert witness.

Of course these cases need you to perform your lawyerly skills, but they are different.

What makes them different? Unlike many cases out there they are built on a house of cards with a sand foundation in a wind storm!

The carrier has great confidence in their forensic experts in this area, because uncontested, the insured or defendant loses.

Let’s throw a monkey wrench into this finely tuned process the carrier uses to control its costs by not paying the claim, or convicting the insured as well if the claim goes criminal.

Depending on the strategy of the attorney, we can take the expert out in deposition, or damage his credibility to the attorney’s specifications.

There is no one that has the training, background experience I do in auto theft and forensics!

Just a little about me:

My first book I authored was in 1998 “Auto Theft-Let The Truth Be Known!” Even though it has been out of print for some time, sill listed on Amazon.

Here is the part that can be approached in many ways:

Or, the case goes to deposition for the insurance personnel involved including their forensic expert. I supply the questions for the client attorney, and we eviscerate them!

I have had prosecutors very confident in their dealer expert call me and talk to me for a half hour and dismiss the case!

These auto theft insurance claim denials are based on the forensic expert they have. Take out the expert and there goes the case!

I also do failure analysis and crash analysis. Vehicle recalls like the GM ignition recall.

I work for anyone looking for the truth!

Rob Painter

1-866-490-1673

Cell: 1-903-513-7808

Robo14@aol.com

Be Careful Listening To The Badge On Vehicle Security!

04 Friday Jan 2019

Posted by smittydog1952 in key of the proper type

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

auto theft

https://gnd.com/why-authorities-warn-you-should-always-keep-your-keys-wrapped-in-foil.php?aff=1713&pclickid=7391893e-cbfd-42cd-92ac-cbc620121310#

This fantasy is from law enforcement wanting people to believe how smart cops are at vehicle security. This article gives completely false information.

There are two systems. One for the locking and unlocking of the doors and to set or disarm the alarm.

The second system is a transponder anti theft system involving a computer chip in the ignition key or start button.

I can beat either, but covering your keys in foil will not protect you at all. This is another urban legend probably told as a lie from a thief that the cop bit hook line and sinker on!

As far as vehicle security to prevent someone from getting inside, there is none. Most of these systems have not been updated since the late 90s and the rolling codes that prevented getting into a vehicle back then, no longer stop a thief. He can program his own remote to get into most vehicles today. However, they are not starting them!

The problem in my view is cops are curious. They generally don’t believe anything unless from a criminal. Weird huh?

Don’t waste your time here! It’s stupid and untrue.

Vehicle Anti Theft Systems

14 Friday Sep 2018

Posted by smittydog1952 in key of the proper type

≈ Comments Off on Vehicle Anti Theft Systems

Tags

key of the proper type

For years we have been told vehicles with transponders are impossible to steal.

After all, a replacement key if you lose yours could run you $1,000 or more at a dealer!

The dealer is the worst place to send your car for this service.

Consider contacting a local locksmith. The prices are much lower, you are getting the same keys and the best thing is the locksmith comes to you and you don’t need to have the car towed to a dealer!

None of these factory installed anti theft systems are even designed to prevent theft! Yet they are they have names like immobilizer, passive anti-theft system, Vehicle Anti-Theft System and names accordingly. Go figure!

On the first generation Ford transponder system, it was marketed as being a system as being “virtually” unstealable. That is how it was known by locksmiths and every Ford dealer mechanic. All that held true until Rob Painter took a case against Ford in Los Angeles (published on web-Emily Greines v Ford). I studied the wiring schematics and designed a theory. I applied my theory using one wire to bypass the system under the hood . I supplied my process to my peers and consensus was that applied bypass worked Everytime.

These systems are antiquated by up to 3 years when the vehicle is sold new.

There is another major problem. If one can steal a Chevy, he can steal all GM vehicles. The same applies to most car makers.

The cost of key programmers has gone down from thousands to hundreds! All available on the web to anyone with the cash!

China makes knock off versions of the $15,000 T-Code and the price is in the hundreds! Granted, it won’t make all the programmed keys the T-Code will, but it does pretty good.

In 2012 I had an AK 400 programmer I purchased from China directly for $350. That machine could program a BMW remote smart key in 60 seconds! That means if I were a thief, I could have the car in 60 seconds!

The first thing the imvestigator would think is the owner had to be involved in the theft claim! This happens far too often across the country and the vehicles aren’t recovered. The investigator will take the keys to dealer and have the dates and mileage read for that gotcha moment. That’s all fine and good, but you don’t have the car to compare the mileage and dates on. If I progrsmmed my key for it, the factory keys will no longer work. Thete are so many open questions that must be answered, but can’t be without the vehicle. Yet, insured’s claims are denied with the assistance of the BMW dealer.

This is the same company prior to the smart key around 2005 and prior was nice enough to I a plastic transponder key in the glove box inside the owners manual. Few were aware of this, but thieves were! Thanks for that fine thinking BMW!

These emergency keys easily broke and I don’t know how many I recovered that I had to fish what was left of a broken plastic key in the ignition.

I will be adding much more to this blog.

Please feel free to comment.

Contact is robo14@aol.com

866-490-1673

903-513-7808

The Professional Certified Forensic Locksmith

03 Monday Sep 2018

Posted by smittydog1952 in key of the proper type

≈ Comments Off on The Professional Certified Forensic Locksmith

Tags

auto theft, ignition forensics, insurance, key of the proper type, last key used in a stolen car, Legal services

When a court designated expert witness testifies, we assume he is a professional and supports his oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Being an expert witness also shows character. If the character is flawed, chances are his testimony is as well. For the time being, I am going to withhold his name, but if if someone writes me at robo14@aol.com, I will send them documented fact.

These attempts to destroy me personally and professionally are not to be taken lightly. These events are extremely serious and cost me clients all because he was a sore loser in court multiple times.

This all goes back to a court martial I was representing the defense in. The case was USAF v SSgt Jackson.

The vehicle was a reports stole and recovered seriously destroyed by fire.

These cases are different from civillian trials in which the experts are not sequestered. In this case, I was second chair with the attorney. My job in court was to listen to the opposing expert and supply questions for the attorney as the expert was being challenged.

Of course, I also got to serve as a consultant then as an expert witness.

In the beginning, after reviewing t e file and the expert’s report, arrangements were made for us to go to the expert’s shop and review the evidence gathered from the vehicle. This was the beginning of what started this guy’s personal hatred of me.

We got to his shop and the expert’s wife I believe handed me the evidence from the vehicle. There was a sheet of cardboard with burned debris attached with scotch tape!

The remains of the severely fire damaged ignition lock wafers (tumblers) were present. There were two wafers distorted and broken. The wafers still had the burned carbon still attached and were never cleaned to observe fresh tool marks and wear. The additional wafers were damaged from heat in different ways. They had no evidenctuary value. Other burned ignition components were also on this cardboard. I noticed however the retaining strap holding the ignition lock was not present. I didn’t know if it had been destroyed in the fire if it was cast iron, or if it was steel and just not recovered.

I spent around 5 minutes looking at this so-called evidence and handed it back to the woman and we left.

When the expert found I spent only 5 minutes looking at the junk he called evidence, it is my understanding he wa beyond angry!

A couple days later, I went to a Mitshubishi dealer and found the strap I was looking for was not steal, but cast iron and would have been destroyed by fire. I knew this, but the expert didn’t!

In trial, we demanded to know where that strap was. The expert was forced to buy a brand new ignition lock assembly costing him over $200 out of his own pocket, just so he could determine what happened to the strap, which the attorney and I already knew it was destroyed by the fire. The point was, the expert should have known! He was pretty unhappy about that too!

During his testimony, he attempted to prove he was a trained fire expert from a forensic organization. I made him walk this back because I was a member of that organization and they never offered fire training. I should have just let him perjure himself.

This industry is filled with crybabies that act like school girls. I want it understood this is not a bitch session. If these goofs have pulled this on me, it’s obvious they pull their crap on insureds.

Later during the case, the prosecution wanted to talk to me and find out what I would testify to. I had no secrets. I showed the prosecutor my transponder key programmer and told him I would be showing the jury the equipment. The expert was in the room as well. I asked him, why don’t you use a machine like this to determine the number of keys programmed for the vehicle? I guess he didn’t like my question and ignored me.

Now, this expert had no problem testifying that all thieves do not want to spend the $5,000-$6,000 on a key programmer. Interesting he woild say all thieves with authority because there is no way he could interview all thieves in the world! What a moron!

When I was on the stand, I was asked if t he expert’s statements about all thieves was accurate? Of course I said no, and it is assumed a thief would but a key programmer. What do tjhievs do? They steal. So who is to say they didn’t steal a key programmer? My past experience working in a Dodge dealer, we had a programmer stolen once a month.

As the prosecutor was badgering me on the stand, I reached into my computer bag and held my key programmer out and said one of these?

The prosecution objected, but it was too late!

The expert and the prosecution tried to deceive the jury as well.

They made it sound like all this money spent was just to program keys for the subject vehicle, which would be a lie.

The programmer I had could program keys for hundreds of makes and models. Not just for the subject vehicle.

After losing that case and having to shell oit $250 for an ignition he was stuck with pissed him off in a grudge that still lasts today. When I address all of the things he did to destroy me and my ex-wife, yoi will find he is no hero and we really have to wonder how many times he has lied in court!

The Saga continues!

What Do I Require For An Expert in My Auto Theft Claim Denial Case?

08 Thursday Jun 2017

Posted by smittydog1952 in key of the proper type

≈ Comments Off on What Do I Require For An Expert in My Auto Theft Claim Denial Case?

If you have an auto theft claim denial case, in order to convince a jury that the Certified Forensic Locksmith that determined the reported stolen vehicle was last driven with a key of the proper type, is incompetent and cannot be believed.

These cases can be complex and your expert needs the capability of knowing the experts he is opposing.

The optimal situation is if e has opposed the experts before.

If he has depositions and/or trial testimony of theirs.

If he has reports of theirs, where a pattern can be laid out that they shipped steps in their examinations and still had the same conclusions?

Do the CFLs have an error rating on their testing processes?

Is the expert capable of supplying hard hitting questions for your attorney to ask the CFLs?

Is the expert court savvy?

Has he been through a number of trials for plaintiffs?

Has he served as an expert for insurance companies?

Is he familiar with how the vehicle at hand can be stolen?

Is the expert fully informed on the forensic locksmithing process?

Has he ever published a very large training program on auto theft and forensics investigation, with the testing processes vetted by the FBI?

Is the expert trained in all aspects of manufacturing keys and locks?

Is the expert capable of being a car thief?

Does the expert have 37 years experience with auto theft?

Has tje expert defeated an unstealable transponder system with a strategically placed wire?

Has the expert got vehicle fire and defect experience?

Does the expert work for insurance companies?

Does the expert srrve a plaintiff?

Does the expert serve criminal defendants?

Does the expert serve the prosecution?

Has the expert ever shown his unbiased approach by being appointed an umpire by the courts.

Has the expert published over 50, books and articles on auto theft and forensics?

Has his career encompassed more than just examination of locks, transponder systems and auto theft?

Has he set up the industry standsrds for the examination of stolen vehicles?

Your expert needs to know everything about the auto theft SIU investigation and EUO preparation process in order to assist your attorney with bad faith.

If this is the type of expert you need to prevail in an auto theft claim denial case, we are the firm you need. There is no one else!

1-866-490-1673 ask for Rob

Burned BMW Conviction

27 Monday Mar 2017

Posted by smittydog1952 in key of the proper type

≈ Comments Off on Burned BMW Conviction

Tags

key of the proper type

It has always amazed me as to how gullible people are. The insurance Certified Forensic Locksmith rendering an opinion as to how a reported stolen recovered totally burned vehicle was last driven is just one such example.

A report will be drafted as to how the anti theft system is designed as per the manufacturer service manual. That is all fine and good, but there is no way to interrogate the system. The examiner cannot determine how many keys are programmed for the system. Bypass of the transponder system cannot be determined.

Why? The computer is a tin box with printed circuity on plastic along with solder. A simple 400 degrees f. will melt the insides. The wiring has plastic coating and once that insulation is gone, all that is left is bare wiring.

Over 5 years ago I had a case in which I was hired as a consultant, but the guy ran out of money for me to go forward.

The vehicle was a BMW 3 series. It was recovered burning on the on ramp of an expressway. The vehicle had a smart key system ( no ignition lock) and push button start. The vehicle was recovered totally burned and the fire had traveled into the trunk. The computer on that vehicle was located in the trunk. The computer had suffered heat damage. However all the wiring had been destroyed from the dash rearward. There was no way to electronically interrogate the computer. The expert that the insurance company sent to examine the vehicle was a certified forensic locksmith. Why he was picked, I don’t know because this car did not have a conventional key or an ignition lock. Everything is electronic and they send a locksmith. He concluded that the vehicle was last driven with a key of the proper type. The insured was charged I believe with arson, insurance fraud and filing a false police report based on this so-called scientific analysis by the CFL. There was no science or specialty applied here. It was a deliberate hoax by this so-called expert.

As for the fire, the fire department for expediency said the fire started in the passenger compartment and was started with a match. I went to examine the vehicle that was stored at the auction. I was met by the investigator who in my opinion was a real jerk. He didn’t want me critiquing his buddy the CFL’s work.

The fire did not start in the passenger compartment. All evidence pointed to the driver’s side of the engine area. Of course this would make sense with a fuel line issue getting on the expressway. It’s not like a thief would wait around for help. Where it burned was not the ideal area for an arson. This vehicle had a whole slew of fuel line complaints under the hood!

The CFL wording in his report was deliberately meant to deceive. He stated the car was last driven with a key fob of the proper type. This wording is meant and it is taken that way by the investigator d the courts to believe this conclusion means the owner’s key.

It could have been a thief’s key fob as well.

At the time, I had an AK 400 key programmer. As a thief, I could program my own key fob for this vehicle in around a minute! Aren’t key programmers for a BMW expensive? Mine straight from China cost $350.00. Once done, the owner’s keys would no longer work. Mine would be the key fob to drive the car off.

That theory was never considered! It also could not be confirmed or denied.

The insured was convicted due to the CFL’s testimony. 6 months after the trial, there was a security video that went viral of a BMW being stolen and the thieves using what appeared to be like my AK 400 key programmer. It took them about 3 minutes for them to program their own key fob! The point being they were caught on tape stealing the vehicle.

A couple months after that, I had another type of case against the same insurance company. When the investigator found out about my involvement, he was kind enough to brag in an email that they convicted the owner of the BMW.

I told him his CFL was a hack and couldn’t factually prove anything. The only reason a jury convicted him, they did not know his expert was a fraud.

I then sent him the viral video I had obtained. He chose to not respond.

The problem is that the investigator had so much confidence in this expert, he was not going to admit he was wrong for trusting this expert.

Ex-cops are very proud and don’t like to be reminded how stupid they were.

1-866-490-1673 or 1-903-513-7808.

Robo14@aol.com

Auto Theft Expert

~ auto theft SIU investigation expert. Examination Under Oath Specialist.

Category Archives: key of the proper type

Insurance Claims During Covid

Auto Theft Claim Denial Cases, SIU Investigation

Covid 19 Corona Virus Policy

Buy Here Pay Here Cars

Automobile Forensics

Insurance Companies Facilitate Fraud In Their Fraud Investigations

Rob Painter’s CV (resume) and Services

Phone-1-866-490-1673
Cell 1-903-513-7808
Email robo14@aol.com
P.o. 261
Bonham, TX 75418

Services

The Thrill Of The Chase

Forensic Deception Applied To Stolen Vehicles

Evidence Gathering On A Reported Stolen Vehicle To Determine How It Was Last Driven.

Auto Theft Claim Denial Cases, SIU Investigation

Featured

Be Careful Listening To The Badge On Vehicle Security!

Vehicle Anti Theft Systems

The Professional Certified Forensic Locksmith

What Do I Require For An Expert in My Auto Theft Claim Denial Case?

Burned BMW Conviction

Rob Painter’s CV (resume) and Services

Phone-1-866-490-1673 Cell 1-903-513-7808 Email robo14@aol.com P.o. 261 Bonham, TX 75418

Services

Phone-1-866-490-1673
Cell 1-903-513-7808
Email robo14@aol.com
P.o. 261
Bonham, TX 75418